Trainman and FVM, whats the connection?

[Bob Bufkin]

Holy crap....I just noticed all my cars appear to be 1/160 scale!  ;D

Hmmmm,  I got a couple old one that look like TT scale.

[Brakie]

Holy crap....I just noticed all my cars appear to be 1/160 scale!  ;D

Mine can appear to be Z Scale.

After working on my Horribly Oversize of course.. ;D

[Mark5]

Dumb question time.. :-[  ;D

How can you tell?  ???

see below

I can see the differences in the 40' boxcar.

That's an obvious one. The low end cars with the uber thick roofwalks are and dead giveaway. At some levels it gets more subtle. I have both Atlas and MTL 100 ton cars. The Atlas late 70s tooling holds up fairly well in a consist (albeit missing brake stuff). Some of the trainman stuff (tooled not long ago) is dang nice. As is the C&O caboose (trainman!).

Watching trains at prototypical speeds I can zero in on some of the stuff.

Mark

[daniel_leavitt2000]

My issue is that the cars inquestion. The Atlas is an ACF box while the FVM is a PS 5344 box, which should have different underframes. To say both have the same underframe is like like expecting the Athearn NACC box and the Atlas FGE box to have the same underframes. They don't.

Besides, look at the ER and BLMA hoppers. The parts are NOT interchangable, even though the cars are the same. Or the IM or BLMA trinity hoppers... again, parts are not interchangable. But the FVM and Atlas undedrframes are.

[wazzou]

Who cares?  What impact is there either way? 

[Robbman]

The Bloo-mah an ER 4000cuft covered hoppers look identical, at least until you flip them over... obvious difference on the underside and I'm not talking about the body mounts on the Bloo-mah's.

Don't even have to flip them over... BLMA's has an etched brake platform, and the high-mount retainer, where-as the ER car has a cast-on platform and no retainer... if you really want to pick nits, the diagonal braces on the underframe, below the slope sheets, have the web facing downward, not facing upward like the ER car.

[Sokramiketes]

Don't even have to flip them over... BLMA's has an etched brake platform, and the high-mount retainer, where-as the ER car has a cast-on platform and no retainer... if you really want to pick nits, the diagonal braces on the underframe, below the slope sheets, have the web facing downward, not facing upward like the ER car.

The ladder rungs on the ER car look finer. And if we're picking nits, the roping loop is rendered much better on the ER car.   You should pick up those two design features for your next car, Robb.   

[bobcat]

I was weathering a few cars today and I noticed the Trainman 50 box and FVM boxes appear to share the same underframe. The only difference is method of jointing the metal weight and the words "Atlas" stamped on the Trainman car.

Just curious, I know Atlas does most of their own design work and I thought FVM does too. Do the manufacturers in China also provide template parts that manufacturers can borrow or rent? I would understand it if IM had the same underframe because they already share parts with Atlas. But FVM? Wierd.

Being that IM and Atlas already have a working relationship and Matt, if I am correct, used to work at IM and presumably had a relationship with Atlas via IM, then why would it surprise you that FVM might have a relationship with Atlas?

[Robbman]

The ladder rungs on the ER car look finer. And if we're picking nits, the roping loop is rendered much better on the ER car.   You should pick up those two design features for your next car, Robb.  

You should measure them for me and let me know what the difference is

[havingfuntoo]

I don't think FVM place a huge importance on the underside of their boxcars, based on the theory when they are on the tracks you don't see it and prefer to add detail where it counts ie where you can see it. Hence may be that is why they appear to look like the Atlas trainman version of a similar or same prototype. It obviously helps to keep FVM price more attractive and their models less irritating to the hip pocket nerve. Does it matter if two manufactures utilize a common casting in an instance such as this?   

[unittrain]

My FVM's have just a general generic underframe. Doesn't bother me since I don't see it and have to file the heck out of it anyway to lower it  ;D

[Sokramiketes]

You should measure them for me and let me know what the difference is

The ER car's rungs don't stick out so far from the stiles, so they arn't as thick.  I'm sure yours are a literal translation of the engineering drawings, but the appearance is that they are thicker because they're much deeper. 

[Allentown Hump]

My issue is that the cars inquestion. The Atlas is an ACF box while the FVM is a PS 5344 box, which should have different underframes. To say both have the same underframe is like like expecting the Athearn NACC box and the Atlas FGE box to have the same underframes. They don't.

Besides, look at the ER and BLMA hoppers. The parts are NOT interchangable, even though the cars are the same. Or the IM or BLMA trinity hoppers... again, parts are not interchangable. But the FVM and Atlas undedrframes are.

Not to jump down anyone's throat, but I'm just curious. Have you tried looking at drawings and/or photos? That might answer your question. Just sayin'...

[Sokramiketes]

But the FVM and Atlas undedrframes are.

I think they fit in MTL boxcars too.  Must be a 3-way conspiracy.

[Mark5]

Heavens to Betsy!